Chapter 5: mens rea - intention Flashcards
(28 cards)
What are the 4 categories of mens rea
- Intention
- Recklessness
- Gross negligence
- Knowledge
What are the 3 types of intent
- Basic intent
- Oblique intent
- Foreseeability of risk
What is direct intent
Direct intent is when the when the defendant may want to achieve a particular desire, aim or purpose and does it in order to achieve that desire, aim or purpose
- Direct intent does not need motive to prove guilty
What is the difference between motive and intention
make it clear that they are NOT the same thing
Motive - the reason behind doing something
- Motive can help the jury arrive at its decision
- A benevolent purpose (good) or malevolent purspose (bad) is taken into account to decide the gravity of the sentencing
Intention - the deliberate action to bring about the prohibited consequence
- Matter decided by the jury
Although direct intent doesn’t need motive, what is it used for
Court may place reliance of the issue of the motive in order to decide the outcome of the case
What are the cases for 4 direct intent?
Definition
- R v Mohan
Motive - irrelevant
- Chandler v DPP
Wrongly decided
- Gillick v West Northfolk
- R v Steane
What is the current case/definition for direct intent?
R v Mohan [1975]
- “a decision to bring about, insofar as it lies within the accused’s power (the relevant consequence) no matter whether the accused desired the consequence or not”
Chandler v DPP [1964]
direct intent
Held:
- HOL held that their motives of a planned sit-in military airfield in the interest of the state and of the whole of UK population were irrelevant as they had committed an offence solely by appraoching the airfield which is prohibnited place under Section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911
(did not matter if there was motive or not)
What is the exception for doctors regardiang direct intent
If the doctor whose primary purpose or motive is to relieve pain by giving medication to the patient, where he knows will incidentally hasten the patient’s death does not have mens rea for murder
What are the 2 cases that judges made wrong judgement for direct intent
- Gillick v West Norfolk [1986]
- R v Steane
What was wrongly decided in Gillick v West Norfolk & Wisbech Area Health Authority
direct intent
Wrong:
- Some judges had the opinion that the doctor, who knew giving prescription contraceptive to a girl (16 yo) would encourage other to have sexual intercouse with her, would not be guilty, cause his
- “intention was to protect the girl”
Right:
- He was guilty cause of the intent that he knew that it would result in such consequence
What was wrongly decided in R v Steane
direct intent
Wrong:
- Court held that the defendant did not have an intention to assist the enemy when broadcacsting he would give them information in order to save his family and himself from the horrors of the concentration camp during WW2
Right:
- Although his motive may be to save his family; there was intent to give information and assist the enemy
Takeaway
- Only the intent to bring out the end result is what matters in direct intent crime
- Motive - irrelevant
What is abet
To encourage or assist one in conducting a crime
What is entrapment
process where the defendant is assited or incited to committ a crime in order to find the evidence against the defendant (to blend in)
What is oblique intent
When defendant does not desire the consequence, but foresees that the consequence is virtually certain to result (foreseability of risk)
(need) Secondary purpose > Primary purpose
What is definition of intention from Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice (41st Edition)
“(1) A man intends a consequence when he desires the consequence to happen whether or not he foresees it will probably happen; (2) or He forsees that it will probably happen whether he desires it or not.”
1) talks about direct intent
2) talks about oblique intent (foreseeability of risk)
What is the idea of foreseeability of risk when deciding conviction
Foreseeability has 2 outcomes depending on the foreseeable risk that in the consequence of the act defendant should have known
1) High risk = intent
2) Low risk = recklessness
What are the list of cases for oblique intent?
- DPP v Smith [1961] - natural & probable
- DPP v Hyam [1975] - highly probable
- R v Moloney [1985] - foresaw & natural consequence
- R v Hancock & Shankland [1986] - greater probability = highly intended
- Nedrick (1986) - foresaw risk was virtually certain
- R v Woolin [1998] - current test
DPP v Smith [1961]
2 elements
1st case - oblique intent
Held
- HOL held whether the act that caused grievous bodily harm was the natural and probable result therefore equating to “natural and probable” as to mean intention
Elements
- It equated/equivalent to intent with natural and probable consequence of the action
- it had created an objective test
Example
- primary purpose = to escape
- secondary purpose = What is the probability, whether or not he needed to kill the policeman to escape
What does Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 provide?
happened after DPP v Smith
important
” A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offence: (shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw as a result of his actions by reason only of it being a natural and probable consequence of these actions); (but shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances).”
Only infer if there is enough evidence provided (Ms Puvan’s bucket analogy)
This rule clearly overruled DPP v Smith
DPP v Hyam [1975]
2nd case - oblique intent
Held
- HOL said that Mrs Hyam pouring petrol through a letterbox, knowing that her lover’s wife and children were inside the house, intended to kill them if she foresaw the risk was likely, whatever else she may have meant to achieve
Lord Diplock’s reasoning
- “… no distinction is to be drawn… Between the state of mind of one who does in fact because he desires it to produce a particular evil consequence and the state of mind of one who does the act knowing full well that it is likely to produce that consequence although it may not be the object he was seeking to achieve by doing the act. what is common to both of these states of mine is willingness to produce the particular consequence and this, in my view is… (intent)
Defendant would be guilty for mens rea for murder if the it was proved that defendant
- intended to kill; or foresaw killing
- intended to cause GBH; or foresaw GBH
Takeaway
- HOL: foresight of death or GBH as “highly probable”
R v Maloney [1985]
3rd case - oblique intent
- The mens rea for murder is intention to kill or cause GBH. This belongs to the substantive law;
- That mere foresight of the probable consequence is not equivalent to intention
- That foresight is an issue of the law of evidence and not substantive law
HOL:
- Test was whether D foresaw results as a natural consequence of his actions
What is the probibility of someone getting hurt/killed?
What are 2 questions the judge would direct to the jury if there was suffiencient evidence to observe if the defendant had intention to commit the crime
- Was death or grievous bodily harm a natural consequence of the accused’s voluntary act?
- And if so, did the accused foresee that death or GBH would be a natural consequence of his action?
(if there is enough natural consequence/evidence, then it is given to the jury to infer)
R v Hancock & Shankland [1986]
4th case - oblique
Lord Scarman - Moloney guidelines were misleading.
- “the greater the probability of a consequence the more likely it is that the consequence was foreseen, and that if that consequence was foreseen the greater the probability is that that consequence was also intended”.
(Greater probability > more likely foreseen > more likely intended)
overruled Maloney
